Thing is, the removal was done without any notice nor the public being notified -- but why? Simple, no research was performed or completed on the effects, pros, cons, dangers, etc. regarding the act of flossing let alone the study of the frequency variable. The act of releasing medical advice or recommendations to the public by medical professionals without proper research constitutes grounds for negligence and liable suits, medical malpractice and even criminal charges if criminal damage is done. The federal government, any entities under or working on behalf of the federal government, or any other level of government; who provides medical advice or recommendations without proper research and study are not only open for negligence and liable suits as well as criminal prosecution; but are additionally open to medical malpractice suits, fraud and even unethical human experimentation investigations.

Oral care specialists from numerous fields have even spoken against dental flossing in numerous frequencies. Think about this:

A person flossing their teeth damages their gum line, initiating bleeding from the gums. Bad and destructive bacteria that is dislodged from between the teeth during flossing now has direct access into the bloodstream. This has the very high potential of causing infection, illness, etc. of varying levels of severity.

Think in terms of any "normal" injuries. If you cut your arm and begin bleeding, would the first thing you do be to find the grimiest, dirtiest pile of filth you can and rub your freshly opened, bleeding wound into it? No, as this would have severe recourse on your bodily health and integrity. So why would you willing perform this action inside your mouth, which is filled with up to 1 billion bacteria per tooth, at least once per day? Seems kind of stupid when you really stop to think about it right?

At 8/14/2016 5:59:01 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:Since 1979, the U.S. Government has been recommending daily flossing alongside your brushing regiment. This recommendation has suddenly disappeared from their website.

Thing is, the removal was done without any notice nor the public being notified -- but why? Simple, no research was performed or completed on the effects, pros, cons, dangers, etc. regarding the act of flossing let alone the study of the frequency variable. The act of releasing medical advice or recommendations to the public by medical professionals without proper research constitutes grounds for negligence and liable suits, medical malpractice and even criminal charges if criminal damage is done. The federal government, any entities under or working on behalf of the federal government, or any other level of government; who provides medical advice or recommendations without proper research and study are not only open for negligence and liable suits as well as criminal prosecution; but are additionally open to medical malpractice suits, fraud and even unethical human experimentation investigations.

Oral care specialists from numerous fields have even spoken against dental flossing in numerous frequencies. Think about this:

A person flossing their teeth damages their gum line, initiating bleeding from the gums. Bad and destructive bacteria that is dislodged from between the teeth during flossing now has direct access into the bloodstream. This has the very high potential of causing infection, illness, etc. of varying levels of severity.

Think in terms of any "normal" injuries. If you cut your arm and begin bleeding, would the first thing you do be to find the grimiest, dirtiest pile of filth you can and rub your freshly opened, bleeding wound into it? No, as this would have severe recourse on your bodily health and integrity. So why would you willing perform this action inside your mouth, which is filled with up to 1 billion bacteria per tooth, at least once per day? Seems kind of stupid when you really stop to think about it right?

I am curious to other people's thoughts on this.

Of all the issues to talk about ... You have to be talking about something bigger right? Please tell me there's a meta issue at stake.

At 8/14/2016 5:59:01 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:Since 1979, the U.S. Government has been recommending daily flossing alongside your brushing regiment. This recommendation has suddenly disappeared from their website.

Thing is, the removal was done without any notice nor the public being notified -- but why? Simple, no research was performed or completed on the effects, pros, cons, dangers, etc. regarding the act of flossing let alone the study of the frequency variable. The act of releasing medical advice or recommendations to the public by medical professionals without proper research constitutes grounds for negligence and liable suits, medical malpractice and even criminal charges if criminal damage is done. The federal government, any entities under or working on behalf of the federal government, or any other level of government; who provides medical advice or recommendations without proper research and study are not only open for negligence and liable suits as well as criminal prosecution; but are additionally open to medical malpractice suits, fraud and even unethical human experimentation investigations.

Oral care specialists from numerous fields have even spoken against dental flossing in numerous frequencies. Think about this:

A person flossing their teeth damages their gum line, initiating bleeding from the gums. Bad and destructive bacteria that is dislodged from between the teeth during flossing now has direct access into the bloodstream. This has the very high potential of causing infection, illness, etc. of varying levels of severity.

Think in terms of any "normal" injuries. If you cut your arm and begin bleeding, would the first thing you do be to find the grimiest, dirtiest pile of filth you can and rub your freshly opened, bleeding wound into it? No, as this would have severe recourse on your bodily health and integrity. So why would you willing perform this action inside your mouth, which is filled with up to 1 billion bacteria per tooth, at least once per day? Seems kind of stupid when you really stop to think about it right?

I am curious to other people's thoughts on this.

Of all the issues to talk about ... You have to be talking about something bigger right? Please tell me there's a meta issue at stake.

Well first of all, and most importantly, when I personally read about this, I viewed it deeper than face value. I saw it at it's root...since 1979, the federal government has been force feeding us from birth, a medical FACT regarding oral health, with NO facts or proof, while also violating numerous consumer protection, patient protection, and citizen protection laws. To me personally, this is astounding; the fact that the highest levels of government would commit fraud on this mass scale for this many decades, and when called on it shows absolutely no remorse and is so arrogant about their ability to lie without recourse that they hid their changes and the fraudulent statements made for decades.

THAT is what I really see as the central issue here.

Also, regarding your last statement and citation: That's not a correct statement. You have to focus on the language used and the change in language:

1) ADA Now States -- "Flossing may also help prevent gum disease and cavities." (Straight from your source).

Take special note of the use of the word "MAY". They are no longer saying it WILL help prevent problems, but are now saying it MAY help prevent problems. This is the exact method used by vitamin, nutrient and supplement manufacturers to get their products on the shelf and sold.

Check it out for yourself: Take a look at all the vitamins, nutrients and supplements that are advertised all over the place for all kinds of various miracles. Now go to your local Walgreens or CVS, head to the supplements isle, and start actually reading the labels; focus heavily on the fine print and seal decals. Look at the claims on the box or bottle and pay attention to the asterisks randomly added to each line, then look for the definition of the asterisks. "This claim not verified by the FDA" -- "Results may vary" -- "No research completed on this claim" -- "Statement true for one extreme case" -- "Results not proven to be directly from product" -- so on and so forth. Just as these statements do; the use of the word "MAY" relieves the maker of the statement from all liability since "MAY" is in no way an assertion of certainty.

2) The term "Dental Floss" or even "Floss" are no longer used in statements. Now they use "cleaning between teeth once a day with an interdental cleaner". This is NOT a false statement, but key here is the loss of "floss" and addition of the generalized term "interdental cleaner" which could mean floss, water picks, air picks, dental probes, explorer, chisel, hatchet, or any of the thousands of products out there for the same purpose; some of which HAVE been researched and verified which is why your dentist is allowed to use them.

Well first of all, and most importantly, when I personally read about this, I viewed it deeper than face value. I saw it at it's root...since 1979, the federal government has been force feeding us from birth, a medical FACT regarding oral health, with NO facts or proof ...

So when the ADA say to floss daily, you think they say this without facts or scientific study?

I'll need some citation for this claim. Especially given how again, the ADA still says to floss or use some other tool with similar purpose daily.

To me personally, this is astounding; the fact that the highest levels of government would commit fraud on this mass scale for this many decades, and when called on it shows absolutely no remorse and is so arrogant about their ability to lie without recourse that they hid their changes and the fraudulent statements made for decades.

... Are you ok? Is this a joke? Are you really trying to expound upon a conspiracy theory perpetuated by ... Big Floss?

THAT is what I really see as the central issue here.

What? That science isn't perfect and bodies of knowledge change to adapt to new evidence? Again I repeat, the ADA acknowledges the new studies and still says that flossing is important to oral health.

Also, regarding your last statement and citation: That's not a correct statement. You have to focus on the language used and the change in language:

1) ADA Now States -- "Flossing may also help prevent gum disease and cavities." (Straight from your source).

And what about the quote from my source that says: "Although recent news reports have questioned the benefits of cleaning between your teeth, using an interdental cleaner (like floss) is an essential part of taking care of your teeth and gums. ... The American Dental Association recommends cleaning between your teeth once a day."

Take special note of the use of the word "MAY". They are no longer saying it WILL help prevent problems, but are now saying it MAY help prevent problems. This is the exact method used by vitamin, nutrient and supplement manufacturers to get their products on the shelf and sold.

It may prevent considering if you floss correctly and take care of your teeth in other ways. If you ONLY floss (no brushing) and eat sugar and smoke tobacco flossing won't prevent oral disease. They say "may" as a precautionary, they don't want to guarantee just because you floss you won't get gum disease when there are many other factors to consider.

Check it out for yourself: Take a look at all the vitamins, nutrients and supplements that are advertised all over the place for all kinds of various miracles. Now go to your local Walgreens or CVS, head to the supplements isle, and start actually reading the labels; focus heavily on the fine print and seal decals. Look at the claims on the box or bottle and pay attention to the asterisks randomly added to each line, then look for the definition of the asterisks. "This claim not verified by the FDA" -- "Results may vary" -- "No research completed on this claim" -- "Statement true for one extreme case" -- "Results not proven to be directly from product" -- so on and so forth. Just as these statements do; the use of the word "MAY" relieves the maker of the statement from all liability since "MAY" is in no way an assertion of certainty.

This is were we get into nut job territory, claims not verified by the FDA are not held to the same standards of proof as government backed claims like the one about flossing, supported by the ADA. Yes, adding the word MAY reduces the liability from 'guarantee', because again the benefits of flossing for oral health is not just dependent on flossing. Flossing does help, it may reduce gum disease if you do it correctly and take care of your teeth by brushing and avoiding sugary foods, but flossing in of itself does not guarantee oral health.

2) The term "Dental Floss" or even "Floss" are no longer used in statements. Now they use "cleaning between teeth once a day with an interdental cleaner".

If you read the source I provided floss is included in the list of inter-dental cleaners, but they are acknowledging that one doesn't necessarily need to use string floss to get the same effects.

This is NOT a false statement, but key here is the loss of "floss" and addition of the generalized term "interdental cleaner" which could mean floss, water picks, air picks, dental probes, explorer, chisel, hatchet, or any of the thousands of products out there for the same purpose; some of which HAVE been researched and verified which is why your dentist is allowed to use them.

You just said floss was dropped from the terminology yet acknowledge it's still one of the inter dental devices that improves oral health. What are you getting at? Why do you think the ADA still says that using with some type of interdental tool (including floss) is important?

"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks

Well first of all, and most importantly, when I personally read about this, I viewed it deeper than face value. I saw it at it's root...since 1979, the federal government has been force feeding us from birth, a medical FACT regarding oral health, with NO facts or proof ...

So when the ADA say to floss daily, you think they say this without facts or scientific study?

Absolutely 100%. That is the ENTIRE problem for the federal government here. There is absolutely NO scientific, independent, peer reviewed research to back the claim. Prove me wrong. Show me a study. Should be EXTREMELY easy to find in google scholar since it's a medical research document.

I'll need some citation for this claim. Especially given how again, the ADA still says to floss or use some other tool with similar purpose daily.

You require citation in order to what? Define those laws?

NO, the ADA now says flossing MAY contribute to prevention of oral diseases. The use of MAY is key as it is not a certainty, it's not even a 0.00001% certainty; It may do absolutely nothing or cause negative effects but they are still correct by using MAY. They also changed "Dental Floss" to inter-dental tool. Inter-dental tool encapsulates ALL possible tools including researched and approved tools that dentists use, which because of its generalization and vagueness, is legally true.

To me personally, this is astounding; the fact that the highest levels of government would commit fraud on this mass scale for this many decades, and when called on it shows absolutely no remorse and is so arrogant about their ability to lie without recourse that they hid their changes and the fraudulent statements made for decades.

... Are you ok? Is this a joke? Are you really trying to expound upon a conspiracy theory perpetuated by ... Big Floss?

/FACEPALM

Do you know how to read, do you have trouble with reading comprehension, or what? I never even remotely eluded to a conspiracy between dental floss manufacturers and the federal government. What I stated is that the federal government spent decades asserting an OPINION regarding flossing as medical FACT, with no research to back it up. This violates NUMEROUS laws and means that any persons who followed the daily oral hygiene regimen provided by the federal government and incurred one of numerous oral diseases or issues can now hold the federal government liable; the federal government has no defense to use as they violated numerous laws with their CARELESSNESS and stupidity.

Finally, I stated that the government did not make it easily available to the public, the knowledge that they committed this negligence and broke numerous, SERIOUS laws.

TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR HERE: Dental floss manufacturers did NOT do anything wrong, they have nothing to do with it. This is the federal government, covering its own backside.

THAT is what I really see as the central issue here.

What? That science isn't perfect and bodies of knowledge change to adapt to new evidence? Again I repeat, the ADA acknowledges the new studies and still says that flossing is important to oral health.

No, THERE WAS NO RESEARCH EVER DONE....ZERO RESEARCH...NIL RESEARCH...NADA RESEARCH.

Also, regarding your last statement and citation: That's not a correct statement. You have to focus on the language used and the change in language:

1) ADA Now States -- "Flossing may also help prevent gum disease and cavities." (Straight from your source).

And what about the quote from my source that says: "Although recent news reports have questioned the benefits of cleaning between your teeth, using an interdental cleaner (like floss) is an essential part of taking care of your teeth and gums. ... The American Dental Association recommends cleaning between your teeth once a day."

Reading is fun....simply look below...just two line breaks down buddy.

Take special note of the use of the word "MAY". They are no longer saying it WILL help prevent problems, but are now saying it MAY help prevent problems. This is the exact method used by vitamin, nutrient and supplement manufacturers to get their products on the shelf and sold.

It may prevent considering if you floss correctly and take care of your teeth in other ways. If you ONLY floss (no brushing) and eat sugar and smoke tobacco flossing won't prevent oral disease. They say "may" as a precautionary, they don't want to guarantee just because you floss you won't get gum disease when there are many other factors to consider.

And where did you get this information from? Oh your assumption while ignoring the switch from "Does" to "May"? OK.

Check it out for yourself: Take a look at all the vitamins, nutrients and supplements that are advertised

This is were we get into nut job territory, claims not verified by the FDA are not held to the same standards of proof as government backed claims like the one about flossing, supported by the ADA.

Hey moron....f*$king moron! When you google ADA, you get two options "Americans with Disabilities Act" which is the government; AND "American Dental Association" which is NOT a government entity but is a not for profit organization, this is why their website domain is .org (organization) as opposed to .gov (government).

Yes, adding the word MAY reduces the liability from 'guarantee', because again the benefits of flossing for oral health is not just dependent on flossing. Flossing does help, it may reduce gum disease if you do it correctly and take care of your teeth by brushing and avoiding sugary foods, but flossing in of itself does not guarantee oral health.

2) The term "Dental Floss" or even "Floss" are no longer used in statements. Now they use "cleaning between teeth once a day with an interdental cleaner".

If you read the source I provided floss is included in the list of inter-dental cleaners, but they are acknowledging that one doesn't necessarily need to use string floss to get the same effects.

No, your source DOESN'T assert certainty of ANY of those items. Once again, a word is used which releases all liability; "MIGHT". So read your own source.

This is NOT a false statement, but key here is the loss of "floss" and addition of the generalized term "interdental cleaner" which could mean floss, water picks, air picks, dental probes, explorer, chisel, hatchet, or any of the thousands of products out there for the same purpose; some of which HAVE been researched and verified which is why your dentist is allowed to use them.

You just said floss was dropped from the terminology yet acknowledge it's still one of the inter dental devices that improves oral health.

Because if you READ my post, interdental tools is a blanket term which includes properly researched tools like the ones dentists use. The inclusion of properly researched and approved tools releases liability as the consumer holds responsibility of researching any product they purchase. If Dental Floss was directly stated, then the ONLY option available is Dental Floss. If Dental Floss is included within an umbrella of tools, some of which are proper, it is the consumer's responsibility to research all tools within that umbrella.